07-28-2009, 12:39 PM
Peace, brothers!
I've been on-and-off following this thread and it seemed respectful, so I'm not sure what happened.
Pluralone, I'm sad to see you go! I've been enjoying your comments! There are many various opinions expressed here. What I think is really awesome is that we usually manage to disagree respectfully!
We welcome your participation, if you change your mind.
I see valid points both ways. I agree that there's a difference between subjective reality and objective reality. But I suspect that the difference might not be quite as pronounced as we might think, especially since we live in a holographic UniVerse!
The way I understand it, what we consider 'objective reality' is essentially held together by consensus, maybe not consciously, but from the perspective of our Higher Selves. We have a consensual acceptance of basic physical phenomena like gravity, the roundness of our planet, etc. Consensual reality exists, whether each individual person consciously believes it or not. Case in point: When people who were tripping on LSD thought they could fly, they still fell to their deaths.
However, I don't think your example of the Moon landing is an appropriate illustration of consensual reality, because it isn't something that is irrefutably proven and tangible for all to see. Gravity can be tangibly demonstrated, but whether OTHER people did something (go to the Moon) may or may not be tangibly demonstrated. In this case, it's not irrefutable at all. There is much controversy.
Controversial topics like the Moon landing, 911, when the soul enters the body, who shot JFK, etc. are controversial precisely because they aren't irrefutable one way or the other. For each body of evidence pointing to one conclusion, there is another body of evidence pointing in the other direction. Hence, the debate continues!
Therefore, I think it's inaccurate to say "Those who believe XYZ are simply wrong" because, if XYZ is something controversial, it is merely an opinion that they are wrong.
It's true that the Moon landing either did or didn't happen. What actually happened is tangible. But, until we have conclusive evidence for it one way or the other, our knowledge of it is still quite subjective.
Belief in a round Earth has shifted from being subjective to irrefutable fact. But the Moon landing and other controversial topics aren't there yet. There's still much room for debate on those issues. An individual might think it's all settled, but until it's tangibly demonstrated for all to see, it's still inconclusive and therefore not yet a part of collective consensus.
(imho)
I've been on-and-off following this thread and it seemed respectful, so I'm not sure what happened.
Pluralone, I'm sad to see you go! I've been enjoying your comments! There are many various opinions expressed here. What I think is really awesome is that we usually manage to disagree respectfully!
We welcome your participation, if you change your mind.
(07-28-2009, 04:07 AM)Ali Quadir Wrote: I am not defining spirituality in absolute terms. I am defining reality in absolute terms. It is true that reality and spirituality overlap. But "what physically happens" and what you "spiritually experience" are two entirely different things.
I see valid points both ways. I agree that there's a difference between subjective reality and objective reality. But I suspect that the difference might not be quite as pronounced as we might think, especially since we live in a holographic UniVerse!
The way I understand it, what we consider 'objective reality' is essentially held together by consensus, maybe not consciously, but from the perspective of our Higher Selves. We have a consensual acceptance of basic physical phenomena like gravity, the roundness of our planet, etc. Consensual reality exists, whether each individual person consciously believes it or not. Case in point: When people who were tripping on LSD thought they could fly, they still fell to their deaths.
However, I don't think your example of the Moon landing is an appropriate illustration of consensual reality, because it isn't something that is irrefutably proven and tangible for all to see. Gravity can be tangibly demonstrated, but whether OTHER people did something (go to the Moon) may or may not be tangibly demonstrated. In this case, it's not irrefutable at all. There is much controversy.
Controversial topics like the Moon landing, 911, when the soul enters the body, who shot JFK, etc. are controversial precisely because they aren't irrefutable one way or the other. For each body of evidence pointing to one conclusion, there is another body of evidence pointing in the other direction. Hence, the debate continues!
Therefore, I think it's inaccurate to say "Those who believe XYZ are simply wrong" because, if XYZ is something controversial, it is merely an opinion that they are wrong.
It's true that the Moon landing either did or didn't happen. What actually happened is tangible. But, until we have conclusive evidence for it one way or the other, our knowledge of it is still quite subjective.
Belief in a round Earth has shifted from being subjective to irrefutable fact. But the Moon landing and other controversial topics aren't there yet. There's still much room for debate on those issues. An individual might think it's all settled, but until it's tangibly demonstrated for all to see, it's still inconclusive and therefore not yet a part of collective consensus.
(imho)